Alerts

Each year, the Port of Hueneme hosts the MAST (Maritime Advanced Systems & Technology) Open House & Expo to foster ideas, innovation and leading edge technologies for the advancement of ports and the maritime environment. In attendance and exhibiting their technologies are representatives from some of the region’s most cutting-edge companies, plus marine scientists, maritime industry experts, and academic leaders.

Highlights: Over 100 students expected to attend; cutting-edge technology demonstrations; great photo opportunities. Press encouraged to attend at 10:00 am.

Who: Each year, the Port of Hueneme hosts the MAST (Maritime Advanced Systems & Technology) Open House & Expo to foster ideas, innovation and leading edge technologies for the advancement of ports and the maritime environment. In attendance and exhibiting their technologies are representatives from some of the region’s most cutting-edge companies, plus marine scientists, maritime industry experts, and academic leaders.

Students are invited to participate in the morning to observe technologies and demonstrations in the MAST Open House as well as meet with real- life industry pros to discover maritime industry career paths during the Maritime Career Exploration Day fair.

What: MAST fosters leading edge technological innovation and integration in a port and maritime environment. The MAST Lab joins a federated network of leading academic, research, test and evaluation, in-service engineering and operational centers to further expand the region’s ability to provide solutions to national security challenges.

Features of MAST:

Multiple exhibits sharing exciting new technologies and areas of research

Relevant technology demonstrations and collaborative opportunities

Subject matter expert panels and facilitated discussions

Collaborative interchange between public and private sector stakeholders

May 15, 2017 — The following is an excerpt from a story published in Southern Fried Science on May 13:

The United States Congress is considering a nationwide ban on buying, selling, or trading shark fins. While several of my posts and tweets have briefly discussed my stance on such policies, I’ve never laid out my full argument in one post. Here is why I, as a shark conservation biologist, oppose banning the shark fin trade within the United States. The short answer is that the US represents a tiny percentage of overall consumers of shark fin, but provide some of the most sustainably caught sharks on Earth, as well as important examples of successful management, to the world. This means that banning the US shark fin trade won’t reduce total shark mortality by very much, but will remove an important example of fins coming from a well-managed fishery while also hurting American fishermen who follow the rules. Also, a focus on these policies promotes the incorrect belief that shark fin soup is the only significant threat to sharks, and that addressing the tiny part of that problem locally represents the end of all threats. For the longer answer, read on. And for the case for shark fin bans, please see this guest post from Oceana scientist Mariah Pfleger.

Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right. Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery. This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., “the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.”) According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade “will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.” (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.) Several experts in international fisheries negotiations have privately told me that the US has more negotiating power when we can say “manage your fishery sustainably like we do” instead of “you should manage your fishery sustainably, but we decided to stop participating in this market entirely”/ “we won’t buy your product regardless of how sustainable you make it.”

April 27, 2017 — The following is an excerpt of a story published in the Washington Post on April 26:

President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday instructing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review any national monument created since Jan. 1, 1996, that spans at least 100,000 acres in a move he said would “end another egregious use of government power.”

The sweeping review — which Trump predicted would “end these abuses and return control to the people, the people of all of the states, the people of the United States” — could prompt changes to areas designated not only by former president Barack Obama but also by George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The review will also examine major marine areas that Bush and Obama put off limits. That includes Hawaii’s Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, which Bush designated in 2006 and Obama quadrupled in size a decade later.

James L. Connaughton, who chaired the Council on Environmental Quality under Bush, said that Bush criticized “the flawed process” that led to Clinton’s designation of Grand Staircase-Escalante and that his deputies solicited local input once he took office.

“They fell short on the process and the substance underlying the justification for them,” Connaughton said of Obama administration officials. “As a result, it’s created legitimate criticism, which undermines the support for subsequent designations.”

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — April 13, 2017 — A new documentary on the state of the New England cod fishery has its TV premiere tonight on the Discovery Channel at 9:00 PM Eastern. The film, Scared Cod: The Fight For a New England Tradition, was directed and produced by Steve Liss, Andy Laub, and the Boston Globe’s David Abel.

The film is a “feature-length documentary that captures the collapse of the historic cod population in New England, delving into the role of overfishing, the impact of climate change, the effect of government policies on fishermen and the fish, and the prospect of a region built on cod having no cod left to fish.” It features interviews with fishermen, scientists, and federal policymakers.

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – April 3, 2017 – New research published today in the journal Fisheries Research finds that fishing of forage species likely has a lower impact on predators than previously thought, challenging previous studies that argued forage fish are more valuable left in the ocean.

A team of seven respected fisheries scientists, led by Prof. Ray Hilborn, Ph.D., of the University of Washington, found that predator populations are less dependent on specific forage fish species than assumed in previous studies, most prominently in a 2012 study commissioned by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which is managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force argued that forage fish are twice as valuable when left in the water to be eaten by predators, and recommended slashing forage fish catch rates by 50 to 80 percent.

For fisheries management, such a precautionary approach would have a large impact on the productivity of forage fisheries. As groups such as IFFO (The Marine Ingredients Organisation) have noted, these stocks contribute strongly to global food security, as well as local and regional social and economic sustainability.

However, the new research found multiple omissions in the methodology of the Lenfest study. “When you review the actual models that were used [by Lenfest], there are a few key elements on the biology of these animals that were not represented,” said Dr. Ricardo Amoroso, one of the study’s co-authors. He added that one of the authors’ approaches was to “look for empirical evidence of what is actually happening in the field.” Previous studies relied on models which took for granted that there should be a strong link between predators and prey.

Specifically, the Lenfest study and another study using ecosystem models ignored the natural variability of forage fish, which often fluctuate greatly in abundance from year to year. It also failed to account for the fact that predators tend to eat smaller forage fish that are largely untouched by fishermen. Because of these oversights, the new study concluded that the Lenfest recommendations were overly broad, and that fisheries managers should consider forage species on a case-by-case basis to ensure sound management.

“It is vital that we manage our fisheries to balance the needs of the ecosystem, human nutrition and coastal communities,” said Andrew Mallison, IFFO Director General. “These findings give fishery managers guidance based on science, and update some of the inaccurate conclusions of previous reports.”

The Lenfest findings were largely based on a model called EcoSim, developed by Dr. Carl J. Walters, one of the co-authors of the new paper. Dr. Walters found that the EcoSim models used in earlier studies had omitted important factors, including natural variability, recruitment limitations and efficient foraging of predators.

Dr. Walters noted that there were “very specific” issues with previous uses of the EcoSim model. “It was predicting much higher sensitivity of creatures at the top of the food webs to fishing down at the bottom than we could see in historical data,” he said.

This is not the first time ecosystem models used in earlier studies have been questioned. One year after the Lenfest study was completed, two of its authors, Dr. Tim Essington and Dr. Éva Plagányi, published a paper in the ICES Journal of Marine Science where they said, “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion.” The new study reaffirmed this finding, noting “several reasons to concur with the conclusion that the models used in previous analysis were insufficient.”

In addition to its critiques of previous research, the researchers found further evidence of the lack of fishing impact on forage fish. Their research indicated that environmental factors are often much more important drivers of forage fish abundance. They also found that the distribution of forage fish has a greater impact on predators than simply the raw abundance of forage fish.

The authors concluded by noting the importance of forage fish as a part of human food supply chains, praising their high nutritional value, both through direct human consumption and as food in aquaculture, as well as the low environmental impact of forage fishing. Cutting forage fishing, as recommended by the Lenfest group, would force people to look elsewhere for the healthy protein and micronutrients provided by forage fish – likely at much greater environmental cost, the authors wrote.

“Forage fish provide some of the lowest environmental cost food in the world – low carbon footprint, no water use,” Dr. Hilborn said. “[There are] lots of reasons that forage fish are a really environmentally friendly form of food.”

It is also well-established that forage fisheries provide substantial health benefits to human populations through the supply of long chain omega-3 fatty acids, both directly through consumption in the form of fish oil capsules, and indirectly through animal feed for farmed fish and land animals.

The paper was authored by Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Ricardo O. Amoroso, and Dr. Eugenia Bogazzi from the University of Washington; Dr. Olaf P. Jensen from Rutgers University; Dr. Ana M. Parma from Center for the Study of Marine Systems -CONICET, Argentina; Dr. Cody Szuwalski from the University of California Santa Barbara; and Dr. Carl J. Walters from the University of British Columbia.

WASHINGTON — March 22, 2017 – The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Earlier this month, shortly after being confirmed as Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross addressed Commerce Department staff and outlined his priorities for the Department. Among the top priorities listed was “obtaining maximum sustainable yield for our fisheries.”

The Secretary had previously expressed his desire to boost domestic seafood production prior to his confirmation. In a February story featured in Politico, Secretary Ross is quoted as emphasizing the need to “figure out how we can become more self-sufficient in fishing and perhaps even an net exporter.”

In response to Secretary Ross’ early interest in working with U.S. fisheries, the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) organized a letter of support for the Secretary’s goals. The letter was signed by over 350 members of the fishing industry from across the country. The NCFC would like to thank Commerce Secretary Ross for pledging to support the nation’s fishing communities.

The full text of the letter is below:

Dear Secretary Ross,

As members of our nation’s fishing communities, we want to express our gratitude for making the attainment of maximum sustainable yield in our fisheries a priority for the Commerce Department. We are also most appreciative of your publicly stated goal to increase domestic seafood production, which is a priority of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

It is most encouraging that we have a Secretary of Commerce who understands the importance of sustainably harvested seafood. As you know, the U.S. fishing industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and is a vital economic engine for our coastal communities. The industry is ready and willing to work with you and your department to achieve the goals you have set forth for American fisheries, and we want to build a successful relationship between the Commerce Department and commercial fishermen.

We know it is within our means to sustainably increase harvests and achieve maximum sustainable yield. A vibrant fishing industry will pay dividends not only to the coastal communities, but also to the millions of consumers who rely on the nutritional benefits of domestic sustainable seafood.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — March 16, 2017 — A new documentary on the state of the New England cod fishery will be screened for the public in a free special engagement in Washington, D.C. The film, Scared Cod: The Fight For a New England Tradition, was directed and produced by Steve Liss, Andy Laub, and the Boston Globe’s David Abel.

The Museum of Natural History has announced plans to hold a free public screening on Friday, March 24, at 6:30 pm. Registration for the event is free and can be done here. Following the screening there will be a panel discussion with Mr. Liss and Mr. Abel, moderated by Nancy Knowlton, the Museum’s Sant Chair for Marine Science.

The film is a “feature-length documentary that captures the collapse of the historic cod population in New England, delving into the role of overfishing, the impact of climate change, the effect of government policies on fishermen and the fish, and the prospect of a region built on cod having no cod left to fish.” It features interviews with fishermen, scientists, and federal policymakers.

March 17, 2017 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center:

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) are pleased to announce 17 projects that are recommended for funding through the Scallop Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program.

AWARDS: The 2017-2018 awards are expected to generate more than $15 million — $3.5 million to fund the research itself and $11.5 million to compensate industry partners who will harvest the 1.25-million-pound scallop set-aside quota. More than 30 researchers from 15 organizations will be conducting the projects.

RSA PRIORITIES: The projects address 2017 and 2018 research priorities established by the New England Council, which include: intensive and broad-scale surveys to estimate scallop abundance; bycatch reduction initiatives; and work to improve understanding of scallop biology, scallop meat quality, and area management.

NEFMC CHAIRMAN DR. JOHN QUINN: ”The Scallop RSA Program continues to be integral to the successful management of this fishery. We genuinely appreciate everyone’s long-standing engagement with this program. We have many industry members, managers, institutions, and researchers who help us set our research priorities, and this collaboration has fostered a constructive feedback loop between science and management.”

NEFSC DIRECTOR DR. JON HARE: “The Research Set-Aside Program funds science projects that are directly applicable to the management of Atlantic sea scallop — a highly valuable resource. The selected projects complement research and monitoring that is ongoing at the NEFSC and this collaborative approach — enabled by the RSA program — is a real strength for scallop science and management.”

QUESTIONS: For more information about the the 2017-2018 awards and the Scallop RSA Program in general, contact Ryan Silva, (978) 281-9326, ryan.silva@noaa.gov; or Cheryl Corbett, (508) 495-2070, cheryl.corbett@noaa.gov.

March 7, 2017 — The following was released by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

A coalition of New England fishermen organizations filed suit today over former President Barack Obama’s designation of a vast area of ocean as a national monument — a dictate that could sink commercial fishing in New England.

They are represented, free of charge, by Pacific Legal Foundation, a watchdog organization that litigates nationwide for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations.

The lawsuit challenges President Obama’s September 15, 2016, creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod.

“By declaring over 5,000 square miles of ocean — an area the size of Connecticut — to be a national monument, President Obama set this entire area off-limits to most fishing immediately, with what remains of fishing opportunities to be phased out over the next few years,” said PLF attorney Jonathan Wood. “This illegal, unilateral presidential action threatens economic distress for individuals and families who make their living through fishing, and for New England communities that rely on a vibrant fishing industry.”

A monumental abuse of presidential power

President Obama claimed to be relying on the federal Antiquities Act. But as today’s lawsuit makes clear, his decree far exceeded the authority granted to presidents by that 1906 statute. The Antiquities Act was enacted to protect ancient antiquities and human relics threatened by looting, giving the president broad powers to declare monuments consistent with that purpose.

However, the statute permits creation of national monuments only on “lands owned or controlled” by the federal government. Moreover, any designation must be “confined to the smallest area” needed to protect the artifacts or objects that the monument is intended to safeguard.

“President Obama violated both of those core requirements of the law when he created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument,” Wood noted. “Most fundamentally, the ocean, where the monument is located, is not ‘land,’ nor is it federally owned or controlled. The monument designation is also not confined to the smallest necessary area; on the contrary, its sprawling boundaries bear no relation to the underwater canyons and seamounts it is supposed to protect. In short, the designation of a vast area of ocean as a national monument was a blatant abuse of presidential power.

“Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act has morphed into a favorite tool for presidents to abuse,” Wood continued. “Today, presidents use it to place vast areas of federal lands off limits to productive use with little input. Monument designations are particularly common at the end of a chief executive’s term, once the president can no longer be held accountable.

“Former President Obama was the king of Antiquities Act abuse, invoking it more times than any prior president and including vastly more area within his designations than any predecessor,” said Wood. “Our lawsuit is intended to rein in abuse of the Antiquities Act and underscore that it is not a blank check allowing presidents to do whatever they want. The creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument is a clear example of a president exceeding his authority, and we are suing to make sure this edict is struck down and the rule of law prevails.”

No environmental justification

“Beyond its violation of the law, the monument designation also threatens to harm the environment by pushing fishermen to other, less sustainable fisheries, and increasing conflicts between their gear and whales,” said Wood. “The president’s proclamation cites protection of coral as one of the reasons for the monument. But the corals remain pristine after more than four decades of commercial fishing because fishermen know where the corals are, and carefully avoid them, out of environmental concern and because coral destroys their gear.

“Instead of punishing New England’s fishermen — and shutting down their businesses — federal officials should be acknowledging their positive role as stewards of the ocean’s environmental resources,” Wood added. “This is shown in their laudable efforts to promote sustainability. PLF’s clients, for instance, have spent years working to improve their methods and equipment and to retire excess fishing permits, knowing that these costly sacrifices will provide long-term benefits to their industry and the environment. The monument designation undermines those sustainability efforts, by depriving the fishermen of any reward for their sacrifices.”

With a ‘stroke of the pen,’ Obama’s illegal action ‘puts men and women out of work’

“We are fighting every day to keep the men and women in the commercial fishing industry working, but with one stoke of President Obama’s pen — and his abuse of the Antiquities Act — they are out of work,” said Beth Casoni, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association.

“The monument designation will have a negative rippling effect across the region as fishermen will have to search for new fishing grounds — only to find they are already being fished,” she said. “The shoreside businesses will also feel the impacts, as fishermen have to go further and further to harvest their catch, leaving less funds to reinvest in their businesses.

“We are extremely grateful to have PLF at our side as we fight back against this legal travesty, which is causing so much hardship for the commercial fishing industry here in the Northeast.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided late Wednesday not to grant a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit brought by a host of fishing communities, associations and businesses—led by scallop industry trade group the Fisheries Survival Fund—against the impending leasing of the New York Wind Energy Area to Statoil Wind of Norway. The suit alleges the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) leasing process did not adequately consider the impact of wind power development in the waters off Long Island, New York on the region’s fishermen.

The fishing industry asked that the court temporarily halt BOEM from proceeding with the final ratification of a lease on the area, which was preliminarily awarded to Statoil, Norway’s state oil company, for $42.5 million.

“Getting a preliminary injunction granted is difficult, given the high standards that the court applies,” said Mayor Kirk Larson of Barnegat Light, N.J., one of the plaintiffs in the case. “But our case will continue, and we are confident that we will succeed on the merits.”

The ruling explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, that the standard for proving irreparable harm is “particularly high” in the D.C. Circuit, and that plaintiffs must prove that their injuries are “certain, great, actual and imminent.”

However, the court remarked that it “maintains its authority to ultimately enjoin the lease in this litigation if necessary,” and noted that Statoil is aware that its proposals for the wind farm may be rejected and that it may never construct or operate such a facility.

“While the court didn’t find that the issuance of this lease would cause immediate and irreparable harm to fishermen, it remains true that the ultimate construction and operation of a wind farm will have devastating effects on our industry, the environment, and marine resources,” said Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in Montauk, N.Y., another plaintiff in the case. “We have made it clear to the government and Statoil that fishermen will not be ignored in this debate.”

The ruling stated that the fishing industry offered numerous arguments for why the environmental analyses prepared by BOEM were defective, and in violation of the agency’s statutory and regulatory requirements, including that it failed to analyze the actual construction and operation of a wind facility and further failed to consider other potential locations for the wind facility.

The court also noted that when the draft environmental assessment was published in the Federal Register for public comment in June 2016, many members of the fishing industry submitted comments about how a wind facility in the proposed lease location would harm their fishing interests and the marine habitat in that area.

BOEM had argued that the proper time to assess environmental impacts of construction is years from now, after a Construction and Operations Plan is approved, but the court cited precedent in the D.C. circuit that suggests the proper time for the agency to consider these environmental impacts may be “at the present stage.”

The ruling also looked at the balance between the interests of each side. The government argued that the public interest supported its wind energy leasing program, and the financial interest in the lease, while the fishing industry argued that the public interest is best served by allowing the industry to continuing commercial fishing activity. The court found that the balance did not favor either side.

“The fishing industry and the public already have a vested interest in these areas,” said Meghan Lapp, Fisheries Liaison for Seafreeze Ltd. in Point Judith, R.I., which is also a plaintiff in the case. “This will have a significant negative impact on the squid industry and the state of Rhode Island, which lands more calamari than all other East Coast states combined. BOEM can not be allowed to ignore American small businesses and the American people.”